So some Men’s Rightsers are up in arms because the powers that be at Wikipedia just deleted a page devoted to a phony “logical fallacy” invented by a friend of Paul Elam. According to the now-deleted Wikipedia page, “the apex fallacy refers to judging groups primarily by the success or failure at those at the top rungs (the apex, such as the 1%) of society, rather than collective success of a group.”
In other words, it’s a convenient way for MRAs to hand-wave away any evidence that men, collectively, have more power than women. Mention that men hold the overwhelming majority of powerful positions in the worlds of politics and business, and, I don’t know, podiatry, and MRAs will shout “apex fallacy” and do a little victory dance. Rich and powerful dudes don’t count, because of poor and powerless dudes!
On the Wikipedia discussion page devoted to the question of deleting the apex fallacy entry, one Wikipedia editor – who voted “strong delete” – noted that
This is men’s rights activist astroturfing. The guy above [in the discussion] isn’t posting examples of its usage because they’re all on websites showcasing brutal misogyny and hateful ignorance, like A Voice for Men.
He’s got a point. When I did a Google search for the term, my top ten results (which may be different than your top ten results, because that’s how Google works) included posts on The Spearhead; The Men’s Rights subreddit; Genderratic (TyphonBlue’s blog); Emma the Emo’s Emo Musings; and a tweet from the little-followed Twitter account of someone calling himself Astrokid MHRA. In other words, five of the ten results were MRA sites, several of them with explicit links to A Voice for Men. (That “MHRA” is a dead giveaway.)
The top result, meanwhile, linked to a post on the blog of the delightful Stonerwithaboner, who doesn’t consider himself an MRA, as far as I know. But he’s still kind of a shit, and he did recently confess to being (as I suspected) the person who was going around posting comments on manosphere sites as David H. F*cktrelle, Male Feminist Extraordinaire ™.
So, in other words , I think it’s fair to say that the term “apex fallacy” has not yet achieved academic or philosophical respectability just yet.
The deleted Wikipedia page attributes the term “apex fallacy” to Helen Smith, a psychologist who is a longtime friend to A Voice for Men, and dates it to an interview Smith gave to the odious Bernard Chapin in 2008.
But the idea seems to be a simple reworking of a bad idea that’s been floating around in Men’s Rights circles for a lot longer than that.
Back in the 1990s, New Zealand Men’s Rights Activist Peter Zohrab came up with what he called the “Frontman Fallacy,” a notion he spread via the alt.mens-rights newsgroup on Usenet and elsewhere; the term has been widely adopted in Men’s Rights circles since then. As Zohrab defined the term,
the Frontman Fallacy is the mistaken belief that people (men, specifically) who are in positions of authority in democratic systems use their power mainly to benefit the categories of people (the category of “men”, in particular) that they belong to themselves.
So, in other words, if you mention that men hold the overwhelming majority of powerful positions in the worlds of politics, business, and podiatry, MRAs will shout out “frontman fallacy” and do a little victory dance. Rich and powerful dudes don’t count, because of poor and powerless dudes!
Like the extremely similar “apex fallacy,” this idea is rather too silly and facile to count as a real fallacy, but it has proven quite popular with MRAs. Looking through the google search results for “frontman fallacy,” I see links to a wide assortment of MRA sites using the term, including AVFM, Genderratic, Stand Your Ground, Backlash.com, Toysoldier, Mensactivism.org, Pro-Male Anti-Feminist Tech, Fathersmanifesto.net, Mensaid.com, and some others. Like “apex fallacy” it hasn’t made much progress outside the Men’s Rights movement.
What’s interesting about this to me is that this is not the only bad idea that Peter Zohrab has ever had.
Indeed, Zohrab had some extremely bad ideas about Marc Lepine, the woman-hating antifeminist who murdered 14 women at the École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989.
While Zohrab, to my knowledge, never explicitly justified Lepine’s killings, he described the massacre in one notorious internet posting as an “Extremist Protest Against Media Censorship.” Of Lepine himself, he wrote
I bet you don’t know he wasn’t a misogynist – because you have been conned by the media (as usual). In fact, he was a Men’s Rights activist (albeit an extremist one), and one of the things he was protesting about was media censorship.
Zohrab went on to say that it was clear from Lepine’s writings – or at least writing alleged to have been written by him — that
he [was] against Feminists — not against women — he clearly states that he is protesting against various issues which are aspects of Feminist sexism.
Indeed, Zohrab seems not only sympathetic towards Lepine’s “cause” but seems to feel that he was being unfairly misrepresented:
The write-ups on Marc Lepine concentrate on character-assassination. They take things out of context, in the same way that fathers are slandered in the divorce/family court, in order to deprive them of custody or access. …
Marc Lepine was not only not sexist, as the media stated – he was actually fighting sexism!
Lots of MRAs love talking about the “frontman fallacy” or the new and improved “apex fallacy.” They don’t seem much interested in talking about Zohrab himself.
Like it or not, MRAs, this man is one of the leading figures in the emergence of the Men’s Rights movement online, and in the intellectual history of the movement, such as it is.
If I were a bit more paranoid, I might wonder if the emergence of the “apex fallacy” was some sort of an attempt as a rebranding, an attempt to push the “frontman fallacy” and its creator, the old, odd duck Peter Zohrab, with his embarrassingly sympathetic feelings toward a mass murderer of women, down that famous memory hole.
P.S. Don’t read the comments to that MensActivism.org posting, unless you want to get really depressed.
Um, I don’t have any problems with wanker, if that’s what your asking about?
/mildly confused.
Uncle Joe> NEWSFLASH: You are NOT a telepath, you have NO idea what I think or feel. Your assumptions are TOTAL BULLSHIT.
I have lots of idea. You share your feelings with us. Loudly. That you think thousands of words aren’t revelatory… well there are reasons we think you a bit stupid.
I may be a moron (the evidence of the opinions of many people not yourself buffers me from being too concerned with your declarations on the subject of my mental acuity), but my opinion of you isn’t irrational. It may be unkind, but I can point to (and have; in this thread) to why I think you a raging asshole.
From the About Us page on Joe’s new charity:
The First Joe Foundation Against Violence Against People The First Joe Knows and Approves Of (TFJFAVAPTFJKAO) is a community of one funding the best science and making the biggest impact in the fight against violence against the people The First Joe thinks are pretty okay. Thanks to events like the TFJFAVAPTFJKAO Race for the Cure for a Very Limited Kind of Violence That Affects Very Few People Because Let’s Face It Joe is a Bit of a Misanthrope, we have already invested almost $2 Euros to fulfill our promise, working to end violence against Joe’s friends and relatives (the ones he likes anyway) and throughout the world through ground-breaking research, community health outreach, advocacy and programs in more than zero countries.
Please tell me this means your flouncing… you’re so boring and dishonest
@Opheliamonarch
Marie (my sister) says “hi” back! Mom is too absorbed in her ipad to notice I said anything. 😉 Not to mention, she doesn’t manboobz.
Also, relevant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/24/women-birmingham-council-pay-court
Yeah, closer to $30K with no benefits, but yeah, road to riches, road to fucking riches, my friends. I’m riding that feminist gravy train all the way to the … poorhouse!
Uncle JoeI do not agree, by any means with all, or even most MRAs..
It doesn’t matter. By your own rules you are an MRA. sure, your not feminist, riiight. You’re nodding along on a feminist blog surrounded by hard-core feminists and your parrotting feminists catch phrases. If you don’t consider yourself a feminist, you have a shocking lack of self-awareness.
it’s ok though, we understand. Your lack of self-awareness has been evident for more than a year.
Sweetheart, once again, you’re a shit writer. Say what you mean.
@Kittehserf, cloudiah, opheliamonarch:
Thank you for the kind words.
—
@The First Joe:
I actually agree with that comment, at 8:03. That’s pretty reasonable and coherent.
Not to keen on the 8:14, though (Not sure people in power and political maneouvering works as a slam against people not in power, but hey, you’know)
But yeah, our Journey of Assumptions is great. We’ve already reached the Island of Conclusions! All we had to do to get there was make a short jump. Next we’ll head to the Forest of Projection, where we’ll have a hard time seeing all the trees because of all the dust from the Desert of Prejudice that’ll stick in our eyes to get there. It’s a great journey, actually, a lot of the mirages are really intricate.
Ah yes, the infamously lucrative career of administrating publicly funded welfare programs, how could we forget about all the feminist millionaires who made bank doing that?
I… I think I get it. Gametime must have forgotten Joe is mixed-race because Gametime would never call out a mixed-race person’s racist bullshit as what it is, obviously;* he only cares about white people’s racism. The reason Gametime only cares about white people’s racism is that, like all of us, GT obviously* cares only about the demographics of the speaker when determining whether a statement is true. He doesn’t care at all about the actual argument being presented. In order to prove this obvious* fact, one need look no further than at the way GameTime reacts to Joe’s racism, who GT believes is white. As I proved above. Obviously*
*not actually obvious or true
That creeps me out that people think that is funny. A child is communicating that they are very upset. They are following their parent around in an attempt to communicate how upset they are while the parent communicates that they do not care how upset the child is.
I realize that children are not very good at communicating. Ignoring them teaches them to try harder, so you end up with this sort of frustrated effort. Sad, not funny.
Have you ever read The Phantom Tollbooth? This may seem like a non sequitur, but if you haven’t read it I think based on this paragraph you would like it.
@Fade. Last time I called a troll a wanker it went on for quite a while, just wanted to check with another Boobzer that I wasn’t boring anybody. 🙂
Your Mum doesn’t do Manboobz! I’m sure the gynocracy doesn’t allow that, I mean that’s treason or something, Zombie Solanas will be summoned 🙂
@cloudiah – way to try and twist things by misquoting me.
“he would try to personally protect individuals that were family members, friends, or “decent” women from violence.”
No.
I said “decent blokes and women”.
See how that applies equally to everyone decent? Yeah. That.
As for you’re wanting to save everyone from evil? including the arseholes? Good for you, good luck with that.
I am painfully aware of how limited my power is to affect any kind of change in the world, so I’ll focus on helping the people I personally know and care about.
That said, I have helped protect complete strangers from violence and danger* when I’ve come across horrible things occurring, so I generally give people benefit of the doubt, unless I have concrete reason to believe otherwise.
(*Including, in three different incidents, helping stop two different blokes punching their girlfriends in the street, and helping save a woman who jumped off a high bridge into the winter river right in front of me)
But Viscaria, I can’t be racist! My best friend is white!
@Fibinachi, call me Ophelia 🙂
@Joe
Got anyone’s citations yet?
The position you are coming from, Joe? Srsly? You have been tied up in knots. That is the position you always come from.
I think by now it has become painfully obvious that FJoe is a wanker.
I have this weird thing where I am opposed to injustice even when it’s faced by people I don’t particularly approve of. I like to call it “being a halfway decent human.”
But feminists, who focus on helping all women, are terrible because we don’t solve all men’s problems too. Okay then.
I think someone’s bragging about being a decent human being. Man, all roads lead back to “Nice Guyism.”
so I’ll focus on helping the people I personally know and care about.
In between getting in internet fights with people who you don’t know, and who don’t care. Keep on trucking, Nelson Mandela.
@thebewilderness – Hah! Any insult coming from you is a compliment, considering the source.